Zizek : Quiet Slices of the Peace Camp

Ziabari : Waging War Against The Wrong Country

Wright : Litvinenko was MI6 Agent


Wilhelmson : Sad Story from Sweden

Wilhelmson : Revoking Israel UN Membership

Wilhelmson : Forum for Living History

Whitney : Why CFR Hates Putin

White : The Usury Paradigm

White : Ezra Pound American Giant

Weiss : Out From the Shadows

Weiss : Elders of Zion to Retire

Weir : Israeli Organ Harvesting

Webster : Israel Lobby in Britain

Weber : Why Judaism is Not Like Other Religions

Watson : War on Shampoo

Walt : Attacks From Ideological Opponents

Wall : Zionists Freeman Robinson

Wall : Who Gave Bibi Permission

Wall : Man Kills His Parents and Begs for Mercy Because He Is an Orphan

Wall : Joe Biden in Israel

Wall : Israels Trauma Trail

Walberg : To Leave and yet Stay

Walberg : Stars and Stripes

Walberg : Review of Al Azmeh Against Culture

Walberg : Return of the Repressed

Walberg : Requiem For An Overweight

Walberg : Recess Games

Walberg : Publish and Perish

Walberg : Prison of Nations

Walberg : Power Behind Throne To Be

Walberg : Political Poison

Walberg : New Auschwitz

Walberg : Muslims and Jews

Walberg : Masters of Discourse

Walberg : Israel In Canada

Walberg : Georgia Attacks South Ossetia

Walberg : Freeman and the Lobby

Walberg : Defining Diplomacy

Walberg : Cakes Not For Eating

Walberg : Bushs Divine Comedy

Valenzuela : Untermensch Syndrome

Uhler : Protocol of the Elders

Tucker : Open Letter to Uri Avnery Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter

Tillawi : Nice Soldiers Die First

Tibbs : Interview With Stuart Littlewood

Stone : Robinson Investigation and Protest

Spritzler : Why They Voted

Spritzler : They Destroy Our Society

Spritzler : Anti Gentilism

Spritzler : A New Way For Israel

Sniegoski : Transparent Cabal Smeared

Sniegoski : Israel Nukes Obama

Sniegoski : Gaza Resolution Illustrates Power of Israel Lobby

Sniegoski : Anti War in the Age of Obama

Smith : Illegal Settlements in America

Singh : Gandhi and US Israel

Sharon : The Complete Guide to Killing Non Jews

Shamir : Zionist Crook

Shamir : Yiddishe Medina

Shamir : Yeti Riots

Shamir : Wrong Lizard

Shamir : Wiki Chaos Controlled

Shamir : Walking About Jerusalem

Shamir : Translating the Bible into Hebrew

Shamir : Third Force

Shamir : The Snatch

Shamir : The Rise and Rise of the Neocons

Shamir : The Poverty of Racialist Thought

Shamir : The Man Who Stayed Away

Shamir : Texas Body Snatchers

Shamir : Talmud Impaled

Shamir : Slow Down

Shamir : Shamir in Italy

Shamir : Shadow of Zog

Shamir : Seven Lean Kine

Shamir : Self Determination

Shamir : Secularism

Shamir : Scorpion Logic

Shamir : Say Not Fatah

Shamir : Sages Rule

Shamir : Russias Daring Vote

Shamir : Russian Intifada

Shamir : Right Ho Lobby

Shamir : Return of the Body Snatchers

Shamir : Resurrection Sunday Blessings

Shamir : Regards from Ankara

Shamir Readers : Zionist Takeover of Italy

Shamir Readers : Top Stories February 2008

Shamir : Reading Douglas Adams in Yanoun

Shamir Readers : Should The Jews Be Deported

Shamir Readers : October Omnibus 2007

Shamir Readers : March Omnibus 2007

Shamir Readers : February Omnibus2 2008

Shamir Readers : February Omnibus 2008

Shamir Readers : Christmas Songs

Shamir Readers : August Omnibus 2007

Shamir Readers : August News 2007

Shamir Readers : About Ron Paul

Shamir Readers : A Letter From A Catholic Friend

Shamir : Rape of Dulcinea

Shamir : Pope Not Welcome

Shamir : Peter Edel On Zionism

Shamir : Pakistan in Turmoil

Shamir : Our Congratulations to the People of Turkey

Shamir : Oscar for Obama

Shamir : Obama Lynching Party

Shamir : No War For Heroin

Shamir : Not Only About Palestine

Shamir : No Deal

Shamir : Noam Chomsky and 911

Shamir : Merry Christmas 2007

Shamir : Mauro Manno is gone

Shamir : Mahler In Vanity Fair

Shamir : Madoff Affair

Shamir : Lead Rains of Gaza

Shamir : Keep Shining Cuba

Shamir : Kashmir

Shamir : July Thunder

Shamir : Jews Can Be Trouble

Shamir : Island of Faith

Shamir : Interview with Sweden

Shamir : India Comeback

Shamir : In Defense of Prejudice



Find More Articles By Shamir

Texas Body Snatchers

by Israel Shamir

The policy of Total Spectrum Dominance promoted by the Neocons does not refer to far away lands only -- to unruly Afghanistan or disobedient France . It refers to you. It is you, Americans, they want to dominate totally; by controlling your sexual lifestyle and punishing every deviation of thought and act.

The Bible would never have taken off if US law enforcement agencies had been around. They would smother the sublime quest of mankind in its infancy, sending the twelve sons of Israel into foster care in Sodom , for their good old sire had four wives and loved them all. On second thought, the Bible would not even have come that far either, as their ancestor Abraham, this fountain of our faith, would have been locked up for the same sin. That is, if he had not been locked up earlier for teaching his children at home, instead of sending them to the Pharaoh’s school, or for giving birth at home. Every aspect of normal behaviour mankind was used to, has become criminalised in the new American legality. 

In beginning of April, hamfisted Texan police swooped on a remote Mormon ranch, and arrested the men and carried away the women and their children and babies, separating them from their mothers. A judge allowed separating even nursing breastfed babies, giving them to foster care.

This snatching case, where the police took away 437 children and babies from their parents who preferred to live an alternative communal family lifestyle, has advanced the US well beyond any grim vision of totalitarianism ever envisaged by real-life politicians. Americans have already entered the realm of extreme social engineering trod by the LSD writer Aldous Huxley. In that realm of the United Totalitarian States, happy families are being broken up, and hundreds of babies and children are given into adoption to single gender couples. People have lost their children to the state for failing to expose them to the moronising power of the TV[1], or refusing to send them to the state schools.  Some have lost their lives as well: in Utah , a John Singer was shot dead for trying to keep his children out of school. The holocaust of Waco with its dozens of parents and children murdered for no sin but their sturdy independence was just the first swallow of elimination of private life in America .

The Texas police had used a false claim in order to justify their action. They claimed a member of the family, one Sarah Barlow, had lodged a complaint. Soon it became clear that the complaint was made by a delusionary outsider woman with a history of false reports, and probably in cahoots with police. There never was a Sarah Barlow. The good wives and daughters of the Texan dissidents were placed under terrible pressure, amounting to torture: they were not even allowed to nurse their babies, unless they bear false witness against their husbands and fathers. It is amazing that all of them withstood the torture and remained faithful. What made the Texan police use such extreme measures against people who peacefully carried on with their lives? 


There is a good reason for this onslaught on privacy: The policy of Total Spectrum Dominance promoted by the Neocons does not refer to far away lands only, to unruly Afghanistan or disobedient France . It refers to you. It is you, Americans, they want to dominate totally; by controlling your lifestyle and punishing every free thought and act. And in order to dominate, they need to smash all compartments; first of all, Family. Nothing may stay between an individual and the State. By way of projection, your ideologists ascribe this attitude to your erstwhile enemies, Hitler and Stalin, but as a matter of fact both arch-villains were strongest supporters of family. Stalin terminated the free run of wild-eyed feminists he inherited from the Revolution days; while even today, any reference to family values is considered “pro-Nazi” in Zionist-occupied Merkel’s Germany . It is to the third force of liberal totalitarianism that we owe this last and definite attack on Family.

In a normal world, the Texas kidnapping would be condemned by every voice until the children were free and back in the custody of their parents, until the kidnappers were safely locked in jail. Instead, the American papers and internet sites bother with Tibetan monks’ inalienable right to own serfs and the evil Chinamen’s interfering with this right. They discuss whether the Japanese may eat whales (no, they may not) and whether the US corporations may consume millions of starving people by turning their food into fuel (yes, they may). At the same time, they allow the oldest and most natural freedom of forming family life to be eroded and undermined. Why don’t presidential candidates Obama, Clinton and McCain demand safe release of the Texas prisoners – before the Bush regime rides into sunrise to impose his version of permissible intercourse on the rest of mankind?

The enemies of your freedom, the proprietors of your media, have prepared for this onslaught for a long time. They spread malicious rumours of frequent parental child abuse to undermine the natural tie between children and parents. They constructed a fictitious offence of flirting with a girl and called it “harassment”. They invented a “plague of the 20th century”, AIDS, though this malady occupies umpteenth place in the list of dangerous diseases, well after obesity. They promoted and elevated homosexual activity on their TV channels and in official propaganda – all that in order to eliminate family and turn you into obedient tools in their hands.

They preached to bewildered mankind that whoever objects to their apotheosis of gay love is but a bigot interfering with a question of personal choice between consenting adults. Now, in Texas this sophism has come to naught: a group of consenting adults were arrested and imprisoned for their personal choice – not for having wild sex, or running orgies, or for disturbing the peace, but for forming a steady and caring relationship of polygamous marriage, like the one approved by the Hebrews of old and by the entire East, by the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists of our own day, in short, by the vast majority of mankind. If there is narrow-minded bigotry, it is the American persecution of alternative families. Alleged persecution of pederasts in Iran is peanuts comparing with this attack on the most traditional way of family life in America .  

Polygamy or monogamy? This is ultimately a question of local custom and personal preference. The East allows for polygamy, the West allows for sodomy. The East is not worried by age difference, the West lives in fear of underage wedlock.  Apparently, the Eastern gentleman prefers marital bliss with a few nubile beauties at once; the Anglo-American man likes to be buggered by an elderly gentleman. For this reason, the Anglo-American man is forever trying to move eastwards, to escape into the realm of sexual freedom, or – if this man is content with his part – to conquer and eliminate this realm. This could be a good explanation of MiddleEastern wars, the War of Pederasts against Polygamists, surely not a worse one than oil or Jews: in the unforgettable words of George W. Bush, “they [the Americans] attack us [the East] because they hate and envy our freedom”, that is, the Eastern freedom to marry a few wonderful women without going through divorce.

The sturdy villagers of my Palestine do practice polygamy, as I described elsewhere: “I stayed at Hassan’s hospitable house, built on his own land in Yanoun. Hassan is over eighty, a strong and stately old man in grey galabiye and abaya, a sort of full-length dress with a mantle on top. His galabiye is girdled up by a broad leather belt, and a sharp short knife hangs on it. His hands are of good shape and feel as hard as if they were chiselled from local stone when he shakes my hand. Last year Hajj Hassan made the pilgrimage to Mecca , but he is first and foremost a peasant. Our Lord and Lady of Palestine blessed Hassan. He married, and had a few sons and daughters, and then he took a second wife, and had had some more, until he was surrounded by twelve strong sons and pretty daughters. His spacious three-storied house with smaller outbuildings can compete with the manor of the Beg. There are many olive trees he planted on the slopes, and there is a vine with heavy yellow grapes in front of his house. In the morning the second wife of Hassan, a tall and dignified woman in her sixties, brought me this thick greenish juice of olive together with a big and round country bread, hubz baladi, she had baked half an hour ago. Hard white goat cheese, salty thyme, a bunch of grapes and a glass of sweetish tea with maramiye (sage) leaves completed the meal. Hassan’s first and elderly wife sat with us, basking at the winter sun.”[2]

It is normal to have two wives, and it is normal to have one wife, and it is normal to have no wife at all, as so many monks choose. Moreover, it is normal to have two husbands, as the mountain folk of Tibet , Ladakh and Nepal do. (In the West, it is called ménage a trois, and this arrangement allowed Lily Brick to live happily with Vladimir Mayakovski and Osip Brick.) Every such arrangement is normal, if agreed by the involved parties. What is abnormal that’s state interference in the unions of men and women.

The American State pays too much attention to the sex life of its subjects. In normal circumstances, the stained dress of Mlle. Levinsky would cause some anxiety only for her drycleaner; the escapade of Mr Spitzler would annoy his wife only, while the extended family lifestyle of Texan commune would be just their own business. Until the 1960s, the police and FBI used to arrest men and women of different races who dared to congregate – in bed. It is still embedded in American conscience. Recently, a young black American was sentenced to ten years of jail for having oral sex with a young white girl.

Another sexual obsession of American authorities is “child pornography” interpreted in the widest possible way. FBI agents-provocateurs email Japanese anime depicting young girls, and then happily assault the receivers of the emails. Often it has a clear political undertone: an American dissident, an objector to Iraqi war, Kevin Strom, was recently sentenced to two years of jail for having an email with a girlie picture (actually, that of Brooke Shields, the actress) on his computer. The American Gestapo would lock up Benvenuto Cellini, the great Florentine, for his enticing hermaphrodite child, and probably the visitors to Louvre where the statue is presented, as well, just for looking at it.

In the eternal search for the “hidden hand”, men have produced many unlikely candidates, from the Masons to the Wise Elders of Zion to the Gray Aliens and Lizards, or even as the Russian esoteric Alexandre Dougin proposed in jest, a secret ancient order of women-priestesses pulling and pushing behind the scenes. In a similar vein, tongue-in-cheek, one can imagine a cabal of old man-hating butch dykes, or even eunuchs (like in medieval China or Byzantium) forming the hidden US government, directing the FBI to snatch children and destroy families in Texas, sending Bush to subdue the Middle East and kill off the men – both  Oriental and American – their natural competitors for female charms.  

We in Israel have been ruled by our Wise Hags of Zion from Golda Meir up till the present president of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish, and what we do today, America repeats tomorrow, as Steve Niva noted in his fine essay The New Walls of Baghdad, subtitled The Israeli Model Surges Toward Iraq. “What we are seeing in Iraq today has much to do with a deeper and far-reaching "Israelization" of U.S. military strategy and tactics. Iraq has become virtually caged in a carapace of concrete walls and razor wire, reinforced by an aerial occupation from the sky, like Gaza, where 1.5 million Palestinians are now living within an enclosed cage, while Israel controls access to the essentials of life through high-tech border terminals and unleashes "penetration raids" and airborne "targeted killings" when resistance is offered.”

These imaginary ruling harpies can’t comprehend that women are naturally attracted to men.

There is a new Israeli law saying that every act of intercourse between man and woman is coercive, and if they work in one company, it always constitutes harassment. In short, there should be no flirtation, no sex either. An Israeli couple had a long and tumultuous relationship for a few years, making love everywhere from the company’s strong room to its computer centre, but, when the relationship soured, the woman brought a complaint for harassment and coercion, and walked away with a cool hundred thousand dollars. An even better and newer Israeli bill proposes to fine every customer of a prostitute by a flat sum of ten thousand dollars – in favour of the prostitute.

Likewise, the American imitators of the Israeli model can’t comprehend why some women prefer to share one man with a few others – or why some men may share one woman with others, as Abbe Prevost wrote of Manon Lescault. They will forever ruin your lives, corralling you towards the genderless anti-utopia of Huxley.

As much as one feels sorry for imprisoned Palestine , devastated Iraq and for threatened Iran , I can’t help but feel sorry for you, Americans, the first victims and the first slaves of the New World Order your country tries to impose on the rest of the world. We are together in this fight, we have one enemy, and this enemy is not in North Korea , but in Washington , DC .

May 6, 2008, Jaffa – Srinagar

Recommended reading:

FLDS Raid - A Dangerous Legal Precedent,  By Joel Skousen
http://www.rense. com/general81/ flads.htm

[1] Judges in the Texas snatching case and in other cases referred to children being kept away from TV as one of the motives for taking child into state care.

[2] From “ Reading Douglas Adams in Yanoun”.


From Karin Maria Friedemann, Boston

Thank you for this, Shamir. I was not surprised at the Texas raid, given Texas ' recent apparent FBI-coordinated assassination of Riad Hamad of the Palestinian Children’s Welfare Fund, and the crazy Daniel Pipes-induced raid on the Holy Land Foundation and of course el Waco. What really saddened me was the nearly unanimous lack of sympathy from the American public. The online commentary seemed to all believe that these people were pathetic losers who deserved their fate. Nothing but mockery and scorn. At least when we bomb Iraq , there is someone who feels sorry about it online. Only the very fringe of right wing conservative pro-Constitution activists even cared about what happened. I'm so sorry about the babies being separated from their mothers. When you watch old movies about the Holocaust the scene where the Nazi soldier takes the baby away from his mother is always the most disturbing. Likewise the slaveholder who took the child away from its mother to sell at a different plantation is depicted like a typecast of Satan. And yet we fail to feel a flash of shame when a white southern American Jesus-believing mother loses her child for no reason other than her long dress. The even more bizarre and disturbing part of this is that Pentagon documents show that the main reason the New World Order has to occur is in order to compensate for declining birth rates among white women and the subsequent replacement of the labor force by others. Well, what that basically means is that if you want to prevent the New World Order, you have to marry the women and get them knocked up starting as early as possible. Something to think about really. Pop culture encouraged teenagers to hate their parents and move out of the house quickly. Therefore they were never able to accumulate wealth and own property. At age 45 they find themselves having wasted several decades smoking cigarettes and writing poetry (at best). When they die their culture will die with them. Unless they just learn a lesson from the Church of Latter Day Saints: communal living is cheaper than renting an apartment. But skip the hairdo please.

From Ian Buckley, England

Of course, Iraqis and Palestinians know that they are oppressed, but your average Brit or American doesn't recognise their own oppression simply because more subtle means of coercion are in place in both nations. As we both know, neither country is a democracy - financial oligarchy is a more apt and accurate description of the prevailing system. But now even the facade of democracy is crumbling as social coercion takes centre stage, as demonstrated in Texas . And here's a recent headline that confirms all you wrote regarding the suppression of normal male instincts: 'major depression and panic syndrome was highest among men in the UK ' http://lifeandhealt ips/story/ 0,,2277852, 00.html Cellini imprisoned? Yes, and Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll, John Ruskin as well!

From Mel Fowler, the US

This is a situation we have been watching from the beginning. We take the wider view as to its significance, and so do you. I must tell you, your article is the best thing I've yet read about it. Good work! We do not accept the idea of same-sex marriage, an idea on which your article appears ambiguous. Are we wrong about that? Like a lot of others, chronic sodomites can go to hell - They cannot be reformed.

Shamir replied

in my view, marriage is a permanent and sacred union of man and woman, at least, in intention.

From Ken Freeland, Texas

First a correction: homebirthing is not illegal in the United States the article you reference attests. It is unlicensed midwifery that is illegal in many states.

Shamir replied

which often amounts to the same thing
Now, let us deal with the challenging subject of polygamy. If we were candid about this, we would I think all agree that the tendency of the state to intervene in this matter is due to centuries of Christian tradition, regulating marriage in terms of monogamy. I find it fascinating that you, as a Christian, appear to be so supportive of polygamy. Can you cite a single Christian source, a single cleric among the Orthodox Christianity which you have adopted, who is similarly tolerant? No you cannot. And we should ask why not. In my opinion Christianity demonstrates its social superiority to Islam and to Judaism, both of which you rightly claim have polygamous traditions, in this respect. I believe that Christianity regards conjugal relations as a human good, and therefore believes that social peace is founded on a just distribution of it. Since male and female births are approximately equal in number, this can best be achieved by limiting each man and each woman to one mate of the opposite sex. This way the greatest number will be able to satisfy the conjugal urge. Polygyny is quite rare so I will not even discuss it. But polygamy is quite common wherever dominant males amass large fortunes, precluding less dominant males from acquiring the necessary material wealth to propagate, and then put the icing on the cake by propagating with more than one wife. This practice is anathema to the Christian Commonwealth idea, and in fact is obscene to the true Christian mindset. Of course, the amassing of a large amount of wealth by a single individual is likewise so, but the enforcement of monogamy limits the level of oppression that can result from it. This, Adam, is the essence of the monogamic stricture. Without this check, the dominant male can have an entire harem, while less aggressive males go completely without (or at the very worst, are made into eunuchs to serve the dominant male). This is not a pretty picture, but it has in fact occurred in some non-Christian cultures in some historical settings. I find it ugly, and not something to be celebrated as "cultural diversity." That said, your point about the state's inappropriate intervention in Texas is also valid, so long as we make a careful distinction between the role of the state (enforcement) and the role of the Church (normative). You seem to me to blur the distinction, being that you are yourself Christian, and I think that is not useful. Granted the state should keep its nose out of this, does it ever serve for a Christian to advocate for polygamy? Some irony here in that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) purport to be a Christian sect, and did historically practice polygamy. (The Texas cult was an offshoot of this denomination.) But we can see that this is the exception which proves the rule, really. I strongly urge that the Kingdom of God has no very rich and very poor, and no polygamists and no eunuchs. Human goods are relatively equally distributed, and this goes for human beings themselves as mates. I would be interested to hear any rebuttal you might have to offer.

Shamir replied

I agree with you that “the state should keep its nose out of this”, while it is proper for a preacher to preach against greed, divorce, polygamy, adultery, buggery, whoring, masturbation. By the way, Judaism considers masturbation one of the worst and mortal sins, much worse than whoring. You are right, Ken, we Christians accept monogamy – and forbid divorce. Christ was explicitly against divorces. In modern Muslim societies, two wives are quite rare, and more than two are practically unheard of. In reality, a prosperous Muslim may take a second wife when his first wife is 40, or so – while in a Christian society, the prosperous or adventurous Christian would divorce his aged wife, leaving her all alone, and will marry again. If divorce is permitted, so may polygamy be. It could be a better way out.

From Laine Lawless, Arizona

Prof. Shamir, I joined your group after being forwarded your posts by Don Pauly. I must object to your characterization of lesbians as being anti-family. There are certainly plenty of them here in the USA who are trying to bring up children, either natural (from a Het relationship or a turkey baster) or adopted. I do not have any objection to gay couples raising children. There are so many children in need of decent, loving parents that I think if even a same-sex couple or a single person can help, their aid is warranted. As a lesbian, I had no desire to have children, and didn't produce or foster any. Frankly, I do not understand why ANYONE wants them, except to play Creator and to try to mold a human being into a better person than they are. (BTW, this is the cause of many problems, and is NOT a good reason for making babies, IMO.) Also there are many mixed-race children whom no one wants, and if ANYONE wants to adopt them and parent them, then I applaud them. As far as polygamy or polyandry is concerned, I really think you could benefit from watching some of the dreaded TV which you excoriate. In the last few days I saw a documentary about the very same FLDS which exists in my state, Arizona , in Colorado City . Warren Jeffs, the group's leader was convicted of forcing an underage girl into a sexual relationship with a much older man. I have listened to women escapees from this group describe, in detail, how women are treated like chattel, and how they are FORCED into arranged marriages, especially with much older men. Some of the girls forced to marry are as young as 13. The goal of the leaders of this group, as is that of most male cult leaders, to get more pussy for themselves. The accounts for the "lost boys," where teenage boys who show any interest in girls are expelled from the group, so that the old men will not have any competition for that underage pussy. I have no objection to consenting adults forming any sort of sexual relationships with each other, as long as everyone's rights are respected, and there is no coercion. I have been a member of the gay community since 1969. I certainly understand how the political actions of our "leaders" can be off-putting to those outside the group. But please do not confuse the actions of these brain-washed queer Communists, demanding special treatment for "special people" as representing the majority of gays. I am content to just be able to live my life the way I want and to obtain a degree of privacy and freedom. Nothing more is necessary. And if any bigots dare fuck with me or mine, then I have plenty of bullets for them.

Shamir replied

Dear LL, I wonder whether you are aware that you are also competing for “that underage pussy”. Thus your view is necessarily biased, and your indignation sounds false. You disprove of bigots, but ageism (“marriages with much older men”) is also bigotry. You say: “As a lesbian, I had no desire to have children, and didn't produce or foster any, demand no special treatment, and want to obtain a degree of privacy and freedom.” This is laudable sentiment; nobody is against it. Even strictest Bible and Talmud thumpers would not object to it. Carnal relation between two women is not a sin at all. Live your life, do not interfere with others, do not break families and be happy.

From Donald Pauly, Nevada

You have outdone yourself on this essay. I too have no quarrel with the Old Covenant Mormons. I believe that a man should be able to have as many wives as he can stand. Further, a woman should be able to have as many husbands as she can stand.

From Tom Mysiewicz, Oregon

Excellent article, Israel . Would have written one myself but have been having a really bad time with the late winter (mushrooms don't like snow!) There's another case in New Mexico you might want to look at. Interestingly the BBC and National Public Radio (NPR) in the U.S. have been carrying water for this hit in Texas . Check any neighborhood across the U.S. and you will find dozens of underage girls carrying the bastard offspring of whomever. At least these young girls had husbands to look after them.

Apparently, our voice did not remain a cry in the wilderness: Texas Court ruled state acted illegally against FLDS. Big thankyou to all friendly sites (Rense, Truth Seeker et al) who made this article known and read all over the US .

The ruling by a Texas appeals court that the state's child protection services had insufficient grounds to seize hundreds of children from the FLDS compound in Eldorado is a welcome and timely check on the illegal application of state power against an entire religious community, says Salt Lake Tribune
The well-reasoned conclusion of the Third Court of Appeals simply stated what had become obvious and increasingly disturbing: The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, acting only on long-held suspicions and an anonymous phone call that proved bogus, had wrongly taken custody of some 460 children, including breast-feeding infants, after an April 3 raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch.
In essence, here's what the court said: You can't grab people's kids and put them in foster care unless you first prove that each one is in imminent danger. And even if, for example, you have proof that an underage girl has been forced into marriage with an adult male, you can't then claim that every other child is likewise endangered and place them in state custody.

After this decision, the battle goes on unabated. Eventually the Texas authorities agreed to return a newborn boy to his mother, 22-year old woman, and to his 24-year old father (so much about “old men” and “underage sex”!). We shall follow the case. In our view, the family authorities and the judge should be prosecuted, not the families.

From Anthony McCarthy, England

I enjoyed your recent article about the events in Texas , but was disturbed to see your apparent endorsement of polygamy. While I agree with the vast majority of what you said - I fail to see how the practice of polygamy can be seen to be compatible with Christian Orthodoxy (I am a Catholic and you are Orthodox). After all, the Church has ALWAYS taught against this practice - Christ himself speaks out against it, etc. etc. The polygamy of the patriarchs was only given by special Godly dispensation and in part "due to the hardness of men's hearts" - and "it was not always so".
Under the New Covenant polygamy is always wrong - and as Jewish society became more purified in preparation for Christ - it was generally put aside.

Shamir replies:

Christ also spake against divorces; and the Church forbade divorces as well as polygamy. If divorces are permitted, some level of polygamy has to be accepted.

From Br Sean

My dear Shamir,

I have seen other correspondents call you that and I like its poetic sound, so even though we've only exchanged a few emails so far, I would like to use it also.

G.K. Chesterton once said that a man's friends like him and leave him as he is, while a man's wife loves him, and is always trying to turn him into something else. I have come to love you for who you are and for what you heroically do, especially against such powerful and malignant foes. So please forgive me for attempting to get you to see certain things which it seems to me that you do not, or maybe even (which I hope is not the case) choose not, to see. It's love which makes me want to change your mind on what I strongly believe is a very important matter.

In your reply to my recent letter you said, "...orthodox Judaism does not consider relations between women - 'sin'. A Lesbian may commit sin if she wears male dress. But if a woman wears female dress, I am not aware of a verse in the Bible that says she commits a sin by caressing another woman. Moreover, no law (even in countries that are very strict with homosexuals, from Iran to Soviet Russia) ever dealt with woman-to-woman realtionship. I can't be more strict than all the legal systems I am aware of."

Now I can understand how Talmudic Judaism does not consider relations between women sinful, since Talmudic Judaism, as E. Michael Jones has recently clearly shown, is not only a heterodox deviation from the Torah, but is its antithesis (readers are referred to www.culturewars. com for articles on this and related subjects, also his new book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History). But orthodox Judaism? I find that surprizing. I'm no scholar in that subject so I can't say much more than that I hope maybe some of your more well-informed readers might like to contribute to this discussion, and shed further light on it. Are orthodox Judaism and Talmudic Judaism the same thing? [Yes, absolutely – ISH] If it's true what you say, then my response at least is that such teaching likely came about for the same reason that, as Jesus said to the Pharisees who pressed and tried to trip him up on the matter of divorce and marriage, "For your hardness of heart he [Moses] wrote you this commandment. " Just substitute "Rabbis" for Moses.


Judaism is incomplete, it is imperfect, it has no infallible teaching authority. It points to and awaits for its fulfillment in Christ, and now the life, grace, and authentic teaching of Christ continues in his Mystical Body, the Church, with its sacramental life, authoritative interpretation of Scripture, and sacred Tradition. Since you're an Orthodox Christian now, should the moral values among Jews, Iranians, Soviet Russians, or those of any other culture for that matter influence your moral beliefs, which should be Christian and include Jesus' unique precept that even looking at another person with lustful intention is to commit adultery in one's heart? (Or does that teaching only apply to men since that was the example he gave? You're all alone and fooling yourself if you believe that.) When you say "caressing" I'm assuming you mean more than just hugging. Does it include mutual masturbation? Oral sex? Stapping on a single or double dildo and copulating? Such behavior has always been considered gravely sinful in the Christian tradition (I'll leave out the "Judeo-" this time).

Also, you didn't reply to the Eusebius of Caesarea citation: "[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ (Lev. 18:24–25)" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]). (emphasis added)


I look forward to hearing what your other, more informed readers have to say about this subject. (Haven't you received a lot of email criticizing your response to "L.L."?) But let me at least just try to show what should appear to all to be a glaring contradiction between what God has revealed in Scripture, and what seems to me (I hope I'm wrong) to be your position re- lesbian sex :

Mt 5.27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." -- But if two women want to masturbate one another, that's O.K.

Mk 10.6 "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female ... and the two shall become one?"... 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." -- But if two women want to perform oral sex on each other and even have multiple partners, that's fine. As long as they don't wear men's clothes.

Eph 4.17 You must no longer live as the unbelievers do, in the futility of their minds; 18 darkened in understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance, because of their hardness of heart, 19 they have become callous and have handed themselves over to licentiousness for the practice of every kind of impurity to excess. 20 That is not how you learned Christ. should put away the old self of your former way of life, corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and put on the new self, created in God's way in righteousness and holiness of truth. -- But if two women want to strap on a dildo and have sex with one another, that's O.K, as long as it's not anal, since that would be sodomy.

Eph 5.5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or one who is impure...has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not associate with them, 8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light ... 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret. -- But since many Rabbis and other powerful Jews like to watch women getting it on with one another (those kinky old voyeurs!), we'll make this special exception in our Talmudic teaching -- that is, in our oral teaching -- not written down, so as not to give rise to confusion and misunderstandings among the unlettered and uninitiated.

Col 3.5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire.... 6: On account of these the wrath of God is coming. -- But we won't call it impure when it's two (or more) women having sex together, as our inspired and enlightened Rabbinical authorities have so generously determined. May they be forever blessed for this generous concession!

There are a lot of things that the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid, but which are implicitly included under other prohibitions, like having contraceptive sex without "spilling the seed, pirating DVDs, shooting heroin, and sending out computer viruses. The constant Christian teaching of total abstinence before marriage and total fidelity within marriage includes no lesbian sex. In fact St Thomas Aquinas and all the other doctors of the Church teach that lesbian sex is just as sinful as "gay" sex, and both are more sinful than adultery. Only rape and bestiality are more evil. (Summa Theol. 2-2, q.154, a.12)

Maybe it's that you believe contraceptive sex is licit and your acceptance of lesbian sex just follows from that. For, as E. Michael Jones put it, "Homosexual behavior is simply the premise of contraception carried to its logical conclusion." By the way, the motto of Jones' Culture Wars magazine is "No Social Progress Outside the Moral Order." Words to ponder. Chesterton wrote a poem about sex divorced from God's creative plan, with these words:

That Christ from this creative purity

Came forth your sterile appetites to scorn.

Lo! in her house Life without Lust was born;

So in your house Lust without Life shall die.

Have you considered asking some learned and spiritual Orthodox priest or bishop about this matter of lesbian sex? If they told you that all homosexual behavior, and also masturbation, were objective and grave moral disorders (mortal sins), would you humbly admit that you were wrong, repent, and be thankful for being enlightened on a matter that was probably putting your salvation in jeopardy? I'm sure you'll agree that all the good you do will ultimately be in vain if you don't save your own soul. "For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world [or save many Palestinians or help promote justice and peace around the world], and suffer the loss of his own soul?"

I will close with the lapidary words of Our Lady of Fatima to Bl. Jacinta Marto: "More souls go to hell on account of sins of the flesh than for any other reason." And that is not because they are the most grevious, but the most common and, as Sr Lucia, the last living Fatima seer stated, "because of conscience," since sins of impurity are less likely to be repented of than other sins. Why? Because the sense of injustice committed, which is the primary stimulus to repent of our sins, is not as strongly felt when engaging in them, except maybe adultery. There is also a greater sense of shame and hence greater difficulty confessing them. But when they are confessed a great burden is removed from our souls.

For further enlightenment on what Christian tradition teaches about sins against purity, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 2350-59. May Our Lord and Our Blessed Lady guide, protect, and enlighten you always.


Br Sean

Shamir replied:

Dear Br Sean, you try to avoid "moral double standard", and that is very modern and enlightened of you. But there is no reason to think that God is afraid of moral double standard. Otherwise he would create androgens. In other words, though intuitively we feel that some lesbian relations may go too far, and they may constitute immorality, we shouldn’t create “sins” where our predecessors did not see a sin. It is possible that they did not see sin because their world was more concerned with men, not with women. They were concerned with women committing adultery with another man; rather than whatever happens between women and anyway has no lasting consequences.

Real big sin is greed; and this sin should be condemned more often. Let us bother with socially important sins, and keep out of private life as much as possible. Sins against purity are not mortal sins, and they are of little concern to society. I would not care to censure a lesbian any more than I’d care to censure a masturbator, meaning not at all. As for masturbation, the Hebrew Law considers it a mortal sin, as you can learn from the Onan’s story, but relations between women are not considered "sinful". A Lesbian may commit sin if she wears male dress. But if a woman wears female dress, I am not aware of a verse in the Bible that says she commits a sin by caressing another woman.

Moreover, no law (even in countries that are very strict with homosexuals, from Iran to Soviet Russia) ever dealt with woman-to-woman relationship – or with masturbation. We should not be more strict than all the legal systems.

Your reference to Eusebius is very good and very important, but not entirely convincing: Eusebius may also have felt the need to show equal approach to men and women. Your reference to the Gospel is a reference to moral teaching, not to Law. Indeed, the Gospel does not approve of any joys of flesh, but it does not mean we should fight against it.

As for male homosexuality, this is indeed considered a mortal sin; however, I would disregard things that are done in private. Surely “gay parades” and propaganda of gay way of life should be fought against, but whatever people do in private is basically their business.

As for non-reproductive sex, it is not forbidden by Rabbis, though it is not considered a very good and exemplary behaviour.

In short, we should make a clear distinction between private and public, between preaching and law, between moral ideals and necessity to interfere. This is missing in your epistle.

Yours, Shamir

Donate $100 To Shamir Now!
Click here to join shamireaders
Click to join shamireaders